https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=274011 Review is confined to correcting an error apparent on the face of the record and cannot be used to reopen a concluded finding on the statutory character of a notice. The High Court held that the earlier decision had already recorded that the notice dated 24.9.2004 was issued for proceedings under Section 33 of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and not under Section 11A(1), so it was not barred on the ground advanced. As no apparent mistake was shown, the review application was rejected and the prior dismissal of the appeal remained undisturbed. en-us Fri, 03 Nov 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 24 Jul 2018 10:00:39 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=274011 Review is confined to correcting an error apparent on the face of the record and cannot be used to reopen a concluded finding on the statutory character of a notice. The High Court held that the earlier decision had already recorded that the notice dated 24.9.2004 was issued for proceedings under Section 33 of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and not under Section 11A(1), so it was not barred on the ground advanced. As no apparent mistake was shown, the review application was rejected and the prior dismissal of the appeal remained undisturbed. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 03 Nov 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=274011